Narrative:

The purpose of this report is to address continued and ongoing unsafe operations at cleveland hopkins airport, cleveland, oh. As an air traffic controller, I am required to adhere to regulations in FAA order 7110.65. The layout of cleveland hopkins airport makes adhering to the regulations and working the volume of traffic pushed on us an impossible situation. Management has elected to ignore certain requirements in order 7110.65 in order to reduce delays. This is done without any type of waiver to these regulations or any regard to the safety of the aircraft operation in and out of this airport. In my opinion, it is not safe to conduct operations at cleveland hopkins airport. Prior to an incident occurring, operations should be minimized until the problems are worked out. Examples of problem areas are: landing intersecting runways FAA 7110.65 PAR 3-10-4a7 no tailwind component allowed for aircraft holding short. Wind instruments were OTS and the windsock not visible from the tower and the supervisor/controller in charge instructed me to conduct simultaneous intersecting operations with no idea of what the wind was. Simultaneous same direction operation, FAA order 7110.65 PAR 3- 8-3, this order requires the runway edges of parallel runways to be a minimum of 600 ft apart to conduct simultaneous operations. Runways 5R/23L and 5L/23R do not meet this criteria. Controllers are required to violate this regulation on hundreds of occasions each and every day. If the FAA feels these minimums are required, than why is the management at cleveland hopkins ATCT feel they are above abiding by these regulations? Each operation conducted results in a loss of separation. Management requires the controllers to conduct these type of operations and does not report the incidents as required. The distance between the parallel runway ctrlines at cleveland is 441 ft and PAR 3-8- 3 requires 700 ft minimum between ctrlines. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter said that he was counseled regarding a comment that was made about using the intersecting runway land and hold short operations when the wind instruments were OTS and the windsock was not visible. Reporter was told to keep his comments to himself. Reporter indicated that when the wind direction is such that it becomes a tailwind component, he is not allowed on the local controller position as he has sent aircraft around with any indication of a tailwind. The reporter stated that they do not have simultaneous departures from the parallel runways but indicated they conduct simultaneous operations between a departure and an arrival with the intent of having the landing aircraft staggered behind the departure aircraft and not wingtip to wingtip. Reporter said they conduct staggered lndgs on the parallel runways but not with the required runway separation as in the 7110.65.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS THAT INTERSECTING RWY HOLD SHORT OPS WITH A TAILWIND COMPONENT AND SIMULTANEOUS PARALLEL RWY OPS WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED DISTANCE BTWN RWY EDGES ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF FAA HANDBOOK 7110 PT 65. RPTR SAYS MGMNT IS IGNORING PORTIONS OF THE 7110 PT 65 TO REDUCE DELAYS.

Narrative: THE PURPOSE OF THIS RPT IS TO ADDRESS CONTINUED AND ONGOING UNSAFE OPS AT CLEVELAND HOPKINS ARPT, CLEVELAND, OH. AS AN AIR TFC CTLR, I AM REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO REGS IN FAA ORDER 7110.65. THE LAYOUT OF CLEVELAND HOPKINS ARPT MAKES ADHERING TO THE REGS AND WORKING THE VOLUME OF TFC PUSHED ON US AN IMPOSSIBLE SIT. MGMNT HAS ELECTED TO IGNORE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER 7110.65 IN ORDER TO REDUCE DELAYS. THIS IS DONE WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF WAIVER TO THESE REGS OR ANY REGARD TO THE SAFETY OF THE ACFT OP IN AND OUT OF THIS ARPT. IN MY OPINION, IT IS NOT SAFE TO CONDUCT OPS AT CLEVELAND HOPKINS ARPT. PRIOR TO AN INCIDENT OCCURRING, OPS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED UNTIL THE PROBS ARE WORKED OUT. EXAMPLES OF PROB AREAS ARE: LANDING INTERSECTING RWYS FAA 7110.65 PAR 3-10-4A7 NO TAILWIND COMPONENT ALLOWED FOR ACFT HOLDING SHORT. WIND INSTS WERE OTS AND THE WINDSOCK NOT VISIBLE FROM THE TWR AND THE SUPVR/CIC INSTRUCTED ME TO CONDUCT SIMULTANEOUS INTERSECTING OPS WITH NO IDEA OF WHAT THE WIND WAS. SIMULTANEOUS SAME DIRECTION OP, FAA ORDER 7110.65 PAR 3- 8-3, THIS ORDER REQUIRES THE RWY EDGES OF PARALLEL RWYS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 600 FT APART TO CONDUCT SIMULTANEOUS OPS. RWYS 5R/23L AND 5L/23R DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA. CTLRS ARE REQUIRED TO VIOLATE THIS REG ON HUNDREDS OF OCCASIONS EACH AND EVERY DAY. IF THE FAA FEELS THESE MINIMUMS ARE REQUIRED, THAN WHY IS THE MGMNT AT CLEVELAND HOPKINS ATCT FEEL THEY ARE ABOVE ABIDING BY THESE REGS? EACH OP CONDUCTED RESULTS IN A LOSS OF SEPARATION. MGMNT REQUIRES THE CTLRS TO CONDUCT THESE TYPE OF OPS AND DOES NOT RPT THE INCIDENTS AS REQUIRED. THE DISTANCE BTWN THE PARALLEL RWY CTRLINES AT CLEVELAND IS 441 FT AND PAR 3-8- 3 REQUIRES 700 FT MINIMUM BTWN CTRLINES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR SAID THAT HE WAS COUNSELED REGARDING A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT USING THE INTERSECTING RWY LAND AND HOLD SHORT OPS WHEN THE WIND INSTS WERE OTS AND THE WINDSOCK WAS NOT VISIBLE. RPTR WAS TOLD TO KEEP HIS COMMENTS TO HIMSELF. RPTR INDICATED THAT WHEN THE WIND DIRECTION IS SUCH THAT IT BECOMES A TAILWIND COMPONENT, HE IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE LCL CTLR POS AS HE HAS SENT ACFT AROUND WITH ANY INDICATION OF A TAILWIND. THE RPTR STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE SIMULTANEOUS DEPS FROM THE PARALLEL RWYS BUT INDICATED THEY CONDUCT SIMULTANEOUS OPS BTWN A DEP AND AN ARR WITH THE INTENT OF HAVING THE LNDG ACFT STAGGERED BEHIND THE DEP ACFT AND NOT WINGTIP TO WINGTIP. RPTR SAID THEY CONDUCT STAGGERED LNDGS ON THE PARALLEL RWYS BUT NOT WITH THE REQUIRED RWY SEPARATION AS IN THE 7110.65.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.